Justice Committee on May 8th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Make it a very quick question, if you have one.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Is it the same with the prosecution services as well, that there are no funds earmarked as a result of the victims bill of rights?

[Brian J. Saunders]

There are not any in these main estimates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm going to take the next turn, if my colleagues don't mind. It is a Conservative section.

First of all, I thank you for that.

I'm going to start with a little bit on the process piece. With the main estimates, as we all know or should know, you've submitted those numbers long before any legislation hit the House of Commons. It hasn't even been passed, just introduced. So it would be illegal for you to have money allocated for any bill or legislation that hasn't been passed in the House of Commons. Would that not be an accurate statement?

[William F. Pentney]

I think it would be accurate. I guess the only nuance that could be added is that in terms of implementing new legislation, it can result in a new request or it can result in a request for a reallocation of existing resources, but in terms of asking for new money as the process unfolds—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

That's what supplementary estimates are for. Is that not correct?

[William F. Pentney]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Speaking of supplementary estimates, I actually want to follow up on Madame Boivin's.... It was one of my questions that I was getting to. Just for better understanding for members of Parliament, we have sunsetting programs, which I completely understand. You cannot put in that we are refunding them until you get approval from the department and through the House of Commons to actually ask for funds for them, which I completely understand. But you don't know that at the time when you submit these numbers for the mains and so on.

Do you think it would be possible—I don't want you to do it on your own but I might approach Treasury Board about it—that for people to understand better that these are sunsetted programs and that these had been funded in the past through supplementary estimates, there might be some way for members of Parliament maybe to understand better that these aren't necessarily part of the mains but still have potential to be refunded through the supplementary estimates process as the program expires? Or do you think putting a footnote to that would be a problem?

[William F. Pentney]

That's a very interesting question and obviously one that is best answered in full by Treasury Board. I would say that in the cycle, with apologies for the confusion, over the course of three or four years or several years, something that is funded in supplementary estimates may then be reflected in the next set of mains. So to say that there's a footnote that says this was....

I guess, Mr. Chairman, to maybe turn the question back to you, is it that it is anticipated that funding would be sought?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

No, I wouldn't say sought.

[William F. Pentney]

If you look backwards, the funding may have been in mains or supps, simply depending on the time of cabinet approval and Parliamentary approval.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

That's often what happens with sunsetting programs. They sunset mid-cycle, so you have to put them in the supps.

[William F. Pentney]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm just looking at a way to better inform members of Parliament, so that they don't ask questions about stuff that may get refunded in supps and so that members would be looking for it to be refunded if they want it to be refunded.

[William F. Pentney]

I understand the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm going to move on a little bit. I appreciate that answer.

On page 9 of your plans and priorities document, you have a risk analysis. One of your risks that I don't understand is to “maintain ongoing dialogue with partners and stakeholders”—federal departments, provincial governments, and non-government organizations, police, and so on. Why is that a risk? I don't understand why maintaining dialogue with our partners is a risk. How would you like to try to explain that one for me?

[William F. Pentney]

Let me start and then others can pick up.

It's obviously the way we've expressed it. As an example, we're here before you seeking approval for $630 million, and we're seeking approval in addition for net vote authority of $296 million. I have lawyers on salary today who have families and jobs and mortgages, whose ability to be paid through the next year depends on our capacity to cost recover from client departments who are themselves subject to reductions, shifts, operating budget freezes, and otherwise. So unlike other departments, I as a deputy face the question of managing a place where a significant amount of salary for existing employees is dependent on bills and depends, therefore, on understanding the needs and opportunities and capacities of other departments.

We manage a very effective and fruitful relationship with provinces and territories, but they are also subject to their own processes and constraints as well. Our plans going forward depend on...and we do. So maybe it's the way we've expressed the risk. There always is for us the twofold risk of—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I understand it better now.

[William F. Pentney]

—whether departments will have the resources.... We're pretty sure many of them will have the need. The question is whether they will have the resources to pay at current levels or whether we have to start adjusting, looking forward. Concerning the provinces, the question is whether there's a shift that we will need to consider in our future planning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I have time for one quick question in this round, although I have a few more questions.

On page 31, I do not understand the target of “2” in the performance measurement section.

I know it's hard to believe that I read them.

[William F. Pentney]

No, I very much appreciate that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is that two more or 2%? What is that “2”? I don't understand what the “2” is.

This is for “Victims of crime access information” in “Program Expected Results”. The target for the year-over-year percentage increase of client contacts shows as “2”. Are you hoping to have 2% more people or two people, or...? I don't get that.

[William F. Pentney]

No, as it is expressed as a percentage, I believe it would be a percentage, but I will undertake to confirm.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

So is it 2% more than what the previous percentage was? I don't know what the previous percentage was.

[William F. Pentney]

We can provide that information. Sitting before you, I don't either.

We can provide it, Mr. Chairman.